Mitigation is the problem
Well, that is the problem, isn't it? The new prescription benefit program will actually help some people, but at the cost of doing enormous damage elsewhere. Including these nuggets of goodness is what allows these abominations to become law. Because some disingenuous senator can point to the one nice bit and say, "but look, we're helping old people get the meds they need and not have to eat cat food! You don't want old people to eat cat food, do you?"
I don't oppose helping people. I do oppose helping people who don't need to be helped. But the AARP and others oppose means testing tooth and nail. And the sad fact is that if a benefit becomes available, people will use it regardless of whether or not they "need" it. Soon after, they will feel entitled to that benefit, and will scream bloody murder if some cold hearted conservative tries to take it away. Every beneficiary of one of these vast entitlement programs becomes an instant, permanent constituent for whoever says they'll continue or expand these programs.
When we create these programs we have to limit the eligibility, and everywhere possible build in mechanisms that encourage people to leave the program. It should never be just a handout. It should never provide everything, otherwise there is never any incentive to provide for yourself. A safety net is just that - something to catch you if you fall. It shouldn't be a place to live permanently. Benefit programs have to be set up with an eye toward personal responsibility. The responsibility to work, to provide for your own retirement, etc. Privatizing Social Security would go a long way towards allowing people to actually provide for their own futures.
Instead of blindly paying a huge chunk of your earnings (matched by your employer, remember) to the government, imagine that that money went into your own account. Every quarter you'd get a statement showing how much money you had. If you die, your family would inherit the cash - unlike the current system where the money largely just disappears into the government black hole. In this scenario, everyone would actually be providing for their own futures, and we wouldn't have to worry about SS going bust, and we'd worry far less about providing for the needs of seniors.
on
| § 2
§ 2 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Indeed. Strict eligibility
Indeed. Strict eligibility and means testing are the first steps towards rationalizing the proposed reforms.
But why stop there? I actually support Howard Dean's proposal of a national health plan, but on the same grounds. Such a plan should only be available to people whose employers do not offer health insurance plans of their own, and should be fairly bare-boned. Of course, strict eligibility and means testing would apply here too. And then there's the funding and pork problem, the problem of adding more bureaucracy on top of the current mess.... So really, it would be more accurate to say that I WOULD support such a plan, if and only if it were thought through well on the front end.
That raises a question-- in regard to the Medicare bill, certain congressmen have expressed a wish to "just pass a damn bill already", in the theory that the good a flawed bill will do in the short run will be greater than the damage it could in the long run, assuming that the bad bits will get repealed or overturned.
Hmm.
Here's the thing. It's called
Here's the thing. It's called social SECURITY, not social MAYBE. The payouts are relatively low, but no matter what, you're going to get it. At least that's the theory. Simply directing funds into a private system means that the SECURITY part of it is gone. There will be a lot of people who'll screw up and have their private investments disappear. Then where are we? Right back where we started -- those elderly are going to be getting a check from the government, in one form or another. We might as well acknowledge it.
My understanding is that a lot of the problems with social security can be fixed by letting the payroll limit rise, or by raising the retirement age. I am in favor of both.